let's get a moment. but first, let's get the news with polly middlehurst . the news with polly middlehurst. >> nigel, thank you. and good evening to you. we start this bulletin with some breaking news coming to us from the united states. we can tell you that the armourer on the movie, rust, has been sentenced to 18 months in prison over the death of the cinematographer halyna hutchins in 2021. hannah gutierrez—reed mistakenly handed a loaded gun to actor alec baldwin on the film set, which resulted in miss hutchins being fatally shot as he pointed the gun at her. the jury he pointed the gun at her. the jury took less than two hours to find miss gutierrez—reed guilty of involuntary manslaughter. she was led away from court in silence. we understand, while her mother cried. alec baldwin, meanwhile , is charged with the meanwhile, is charged with the same offence, his trial due to start in july. that news just into us. well, in other news

today, the prime minister is calling the israeli leader this evening, appealing to him to show restraint following iran's drone and missile attack on israel . earlier, rishi drone and missile attack on israel. earlier, rishi sunak told the commons on the phone call he'll be reiterating the uk's solidarity with israel, but also discussing how to prevent any further escalation of violence in the middle east. and there was condemnation of iran's military offensive against israel from both sir keir starmer and rishi sunak in the commons today. >> our aim is to support stability and security because it is right for the region and because although the middle east is thousands of miles away , it is thousands of miles away, it has a direct effect on our security and prosperity at home. >> there can be no doubt that the attack perpetrated by iranian forces this weekend has left the world a more dangerous place . it targeted innocent place. it targeted innocent civilians with a clear intent to destabilise the region . it must

destabilise the region. it must be wholly condemned by all sir keir starmer. >> now, universal credit will need to change to meet the challenges of an older and a much sicker population, according to a new report . the according to a new report. the report described how both the benefit system and the country have changed significantly since it was first introduced. it says the number of benefit claimants are out of work due to ill health, has almost doubled since 2013, reaching 2.3 million, while unemployment has fallen by almost 5% in the same period. the government recently announced changes to the credit scheme, aimed at encouraging people with ill health to seek work . and lastly, the fbi has work. and lastly, the fbi has reportedly opened an investigation into the baltimore bridge collapse in the united states. six people were killed when a cargo ship allegedly lost power and then veered off, hitting the structure last month, bringing the entire bndge month, bringing the entire bridge down like a house, like a

like a pack of cards into the water below. the washington post says the federal criminal investigation will partly focus on whether or not the crew knew the vessel had serious problems with its systems before it left port work to clear the wreck and restore traffic through the busiest shipping channel in the eastern united states is ongoing . that's the news. for the latest stories, do sign up to gb news alerts, scan the qr code on your screen or go to gb news. common alerts . common alerts. >> well, it was way back in 1979 when the revolution happened in iran . the shah was overthrown, iran. the shah was overthrown, and ever since that moment in time, iran has been led by a really extreme islamist ideology. it has become a country that treats its own people incredibly brutally. it has become a country that we know has funded its terrorist proxies all around the region.

and last night, for the first time, it launched up to 350 missiles against the state of israel. i think some good has come out of this. it's now pretty clear to everybody who the real bad guys are. it also shows militarily that israel, with its allies and in particular the americans and indeed the british royal air force, were able to intercept and shoot down nearly all of the missiles . and shoot down nearly all of the missiles. but and shoot down nearly all of the missiles . but in terms of and shoot down nearly all of the missiles. but in terms of what israel should do next and in terms of how this might play out with the iranian public. and thatis with the iranian public. and that is the thing that particularly interests me. i'm very, very pleased to be joined down the line from washington , down the line from washington, dc by reza pahlavi, the crown prince of iran. welcome to the program. thank you. do you kind of get my point that if this was a really big push by iran to cause maximum damage

a really big push by iran to cause maximlof, damage a really big push by iran to cause maximlof, the|age the elements of, the revolutionary guards that were taken out, recently . vie. so taken out, recently. vie. so basically, it's their way of responding to that , mostly for responding to that, mostly for domestic consumption and prove that they've done something. but it's been entirely embarrassing, i would say, for a country that once had one of the most powerful non—nuclear armies , to powerful non—nuclear armies, to have so many billions of dollars wasted on this kind of, arsenal, and as a result, not even have and as a result, not even have an effective, means of doing anything. and the iranians who are, in the meantime, suffering at home, iranian women who are simultaneously brutalised in iran, people queuing up for gasoline and food, our currency being devalued at 10,000 times the value that it had before the revolution in dire economic

situation, are wondering why is all our country's resources wasted by by this regime? the answer is simple. the regime never cared about the iranian people. it only cares about exporting this ideology . and exporting this ideology. and this is why it has, for the past four decades, been a menace to the region and the rest of the world. >> i was in the last hour having some quite passionate arguments. one with the former british ambassador to iran, who was a very strong supporter of the jk poha agreement, and my own view and others, which is that frankly , from obama with biden frankly, from obama with biden by his side to the european union, who appear to be almost unrepented today, that we have literally appeased iran. what is your conclusion to this? was it was it the deal that obama put forward with eu support and indeed british support was it that that freed up the for money iran to fund its proxies ?

iran to fund its proxies? >> well, clearly, for this regime to have had more access to, funds that they would not have really obtained had, for instance, the old sanction being fully implemented, the regime have had have has had at least an extra $100 billion worth of revenue, that, of course, it spent on its proxy wars, it is not therefore , a coincidence. we not therefore, a coincidence. we see what the houthis are doing, what hamas did, and god knows what hamas did, and god knows what else will be done down the line when you, in fact, as a result of appeasement , result of appeasement, incentivise the regime and empower them to do more . we empower them to do more. we shouldn't be surprised that it will have such adverse consequences. but i think we need to really think ultimately , need to really think ultimately, what is the solution to the problem? i think the biggest weakness, and i've been arguing this for a long time now, that the biggest flaw in terms of the foreign policy of western governments vis a vis this regime has been an expectation

of behaviour change. and this has been, from the very beginning, the wrong approach. why because if you don't understand the dna of this regime, if you don't understand that their values are completely the opposite of the free world in terms of human rights and democracy and liberty, that their sole objective is to impose regionally and beyond a modern day shiite caliphate, which is why it justifies every, steps that they have taken. that's what we are facing at the end of the day. and the only solution ultimately to the problem is for this regime to be no longer in place. >> yes. and that would need a counter revolution. and every few years or so we do see, street protests in iran and in tehran and other parts of iran. and we see an upwelling of people protesting against the brutalisation of society, protesting against the way women are treated , protesting about are treated, protesting about the sheer levels of poverty that

they're living in. but it's very difficult for us to assess what the level of discontent within iran with the regime actually is. is there any accurate measure that we've got on that ? measure that we've got on that? >> well, i think you can have much more ample evidence of where people are and how they think . if where people are and how they think. if there's a where people are and how they think . if there's a better usage think. if there's a better usage of information available on social media. iranians have been very active in trying to send as many messages to the entire world to, to prove to the world exactly where they stand. we can hearit exactly where they stand. we can hear it in their demonstrations. we can hear it in in what they post out there. we have citizen reporters every day talking about the malaise in iran and the fact of how much disenchantment there is against the regime. but there's also an expectation from the outside world. look, let's not reinvent the wheel. most movements that ultimately led to the liberation of country , in recent history,

of country, in recent history, look at the solidarity movement in poland, look at what happened in poland, look at what happened in south africa and many similar examples. it could not have happened without the tacit support of the outside world. if we want to avoid confrontation and if it's going to be done at the hands of the people of that country, in this case, iran , country, in this case, iran, then the only solution is empowerment. you have to give them a fair chance to succeed if they are completely helpless and abandoned under a very brutal regime, they cannot sustain this all by themselves forever. we need to be able, at some point, to have much more tacit support for the world. and the way that can happen is two things. one is to have a policy of increasing more pressure on the regime by means of sanctions, perhaps it is the european is time for the european countries put irgc on the countries to put the irgc on the list of terrorist organisations, which more pressure which will bring more pressure on the regime and parallel to that, a policy maximum that, have a policy of maximum support . in what way can they support. in what way can they actually help the iranian people have more means to be able to

fight the fight at home. the combination of the external and domestic pressure should be enough the regime down enough to bring the regime down to its knees. but this is also not just a matter of regime change. to be able to change. we need to be able to have a peaceful transition to a future democracy, and that's where need all be very where we need to all be very coordinated. iranians among themselves and the free world, if believe that if indeed they believe that that's much better course of that's a much better course of action to put an end to this regime, meaning all the problems that the world has been facing, and instead have country that and instead have a country that is now an element contributing to regional stability and cooperation. >> prince reza, >> well, crown prince reza, i personally would love to see that. i think of us who that. i think most of us who love freedom and democracy and peace to see that as peace would love to see that as well. thank you very much well. and thank you very much indeed joining me tonight indeed for joining me tonight here. for having me. here. thanks for having me. i appreciate yeah. and it's appreciate it. yeah. and it's very interesting, it ? you very interesting, isn't it? you know, clearly, clearly there are a of people in iran a lot of people living in iran highly dissatisfied with living a lot of people living in iran highlythis.atisfied with living a lot of people living in iran highlythis extremist ith living a lot of people living in iran highlythis extremist regimeig a lot of people living in iran highlythis extremist regime . and under this extremist regime. and yet every time they try and protest , of course, they are protest, of course, they are brutally put down. in a moment,

it's back to the house of commons. let's see how sirjacob and

on. let's go back to the palace of westminster and join christopher hope gb news, political editor , hope gb news, political editor, who i understand has a guest with him. that is. well known on this hour @gbnews >> nigel. that's right. and joining me in westminster hall is jacob rees—mogg, jacob, a colleague from gb news. of course, nigel farage asked me a question like he always does. i didn't have an answer for him. he what happens on he said, what happens on wednesday the don't wednesday if the peers don't roll over as whips expect roll over as the whips expect and accept the that they're not going changes going to get these changes through to the bill. >> answer that, can >> before i answer that, can i just thank nigel for standing in for apologise to my viewers for me, apologise to my viewers for me, apologise to my viewers for being parade , but i'm for not being on parade, but i'm here to vote in support of the rwanda and push it back to rwanda bill and push it back to

the house lords, if neither the house of lords, if neither house to an agreement, house can come to an agreement, then eventually the bill stops. but that has to be a decision of the houses. there are conventions opens, but there's no fixed rule. so if either house think it's worth having another go, we can keep on going until doomsday. >> the salisbury convention doesn't kick in because that's a second reading. so it's simply it keeps going at some point. if there's no no movement, you have to pause all collapses. and we have a year's wait. by which time there's an election? >> well, i imagine the lords will give in. they usually do. it's extremely rare for the lords insist on their view on lords to insist on their view on a matter of policy . vie. they a matter of policy. vie. they sometimes insist on a constitutional matter. so, length of time people may be held without trial and things like that, but it's very retrospective legislation, but it would be very rare for them to do it on a matter of policy. i would expect them to give way. they have no democratic mandate to do this. the lords is meant to do this. the lords is meant to be a revising chamber. >> tomlinson, the

>> michael tomlinson, the illegal minister. he illegal migration minister. he says the reason why the government is opposing these six amendments and offering a solution on the seventh is because they don't want lawyers to their claws into this to get their claws into this bill when it bill and this act when it becomes act and stopping the becomes an act and stopping the flights taking off. is that right? >> oh, the amendments are wrecking amendments. they're >> oh, the amendments are wreckoutrageousnents. they're >> oh, the amendments are wreckoutrageous that;. they're >> oh, the amendments are wreckoutrageous that they're �*e >> oh, the amendments are wreckoutrageous that they're an quite outrageous that they're an attempt the democratic attempt to stop the democratic will british people in will of the british people in getting boats and the getting the boats ended, and the house lords , who lefty house of lords, who are lefty lawyers, loving brussels. i can't think of an l for brussels, tied in to the european convention on human rights, which is bonkers and is now telling governments they've got to be green and got to be more green and interfering in the minutia of policies. that's what you've got in house lords. it's a in the house of lords. it's a lot of labour members, only a small number comparatively , of small number comparatively, of conservative lot conservative members, a lot of crossbenchers are infected crossbenchers who are infected by the lefty wokery of , of the by the lefty wokery of, of the quangocracy and, and they're obstructing the will of the british people. >> i wasn't asking for a monologue, but i got one. no, my

point. yeah, of course the piers would say, well, that's not very fair. jacob was trying to make this better and more in line with international law and make sure that isn't isn't sure that the uk isn't isn't thumbing nose at thumbing its nose at international conventions that highest country is highest law in this country is an of parliament. an act of parliament. >> basis, the basis >> that's our basis, the basis of our constitution. if the lords that, lords don't understand that, they from the they should retire from the house of lords, it is an act of parliament that will come through that final through this. that is the final word on the uk. and word on law in the uk. and international law has a very dubious status and lots of dubious status and in lots of cases doesn't have a court which adjudicates on it. and even if it isn't binding within it does, isn't binding within the uk. it does, isn't binding within the well, nigel. well, nigel, you >> well, nigel. well, nigel, you heard it there from jacob rees—mogg making very clear there that that could still go on and on and on. although the whips are expected to be over by wednesday. do you have a question for jacob? wednesday. do you have a question forjacob? can give question forjacob? i can give it off to him. >> yeah, i just, i jacob seems very the lords very confident, that the lords will down and yet there's will back down and yet there's some senior peers saying some quite senior peers saying that won't back down and that they won't back down and they relatively weak they see a relatively weak conservative government coming towards end of its days , i

towards the end of its days, i just think the chances of obstruction are higher than jacob thinks. >> yeah. nigel is saying he thinks that the chances of obstruction are higher than you think. the tory government, nigel says, is towards the end of its days, senior peers are saying it's not going to work. how certain? how? why are you so certain that this will go through by wednesday night? >> i'm not absolutely certain. i think lords should think it's what the lords should do. be in accordance do. it would be in accordance with the constitutional norms. lord anderson of ipswich has said very clearly, and he's a very distinguished, sensible peen very distinguished, sensible peer, that it's right for the lords to ask commons lords to ask the commons to think again. not right think again. but it's not right for lords to insist. the for the lords to insist. the archbishop canterbury has archbishop of canterbury has said much the same. he will accept the will of the elected house, i think, for other elderly peers to block the elected will of the british people raises questions over the whole validity of the house of lords, which is so out of touch with with the nation. and you begin to talk about whether you should create peers to get them to this through. to push this through. >> this far, but no further,

>> so this far, but no further, you think the peers will say, well, i hope so. >> i didn't hear what nigel >> but i didn't hear what nigel said. he's very wise. and so said. but he's very wise. and so i probably agree with it if i'd heard it. >> nigel, heard >> well, nigel, you heard the answer that jacob answer to that from jacob rees—mogg. he thinks it's not good. going be good. it's not going to be a problem. we'll wait and see. >> well, i'm joined by >> okay. well, i'm joined by fadi farhat, senior legal consultant gulbenkian and consultant at gulbenkian and dodi and fadi, consultant at gulbenkian and dodi sort and fadi, consultant at gulbenkian and dodi sort of and fadi, consultant at gulbenkian and dodi sort of covered d fadi, consultant at gulbenkian and dodi sort of covered the|di, consultant at gulbenkian and dodi sort of covered the house we've sort of covered the house of lords thing, and we'll see. i mean, we don't know, do we? >> we don't. we're in unprecedented, uncharted territory , this legislation is territory, this legislation is one that goes to very key and core issues in relation to our constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers , and the separation of powers, and we're in uncharted territory. so how the lords will react to this, given that they've tabled ten amendments initially and then seven amendments later on? and these are quite key amendments referencing international law , so it just international law, so it just really depends on their appetite, on wednesday and what will happen. >> yeah, i, i don't quite share.

it was interesting when i went back to jacob a second time he said that's what they should do. yes. as opposed to he was rather more certain in answer the more certain in his answer the first fadi, even if this first time. fadi, even if this goes through, say it's all goes through, let's say it's all done dusted. it gets the done and dusted. it gets the royal assent. becomes an act royal assent. it becomes an act already care for calais already we have care for calais and variety of groups and a whole variety of groups lining to say they're going lining up to say they're going to mount challenges. to mount legal challenges. i mean, it's a very good news for your industry. this it? your industry. this isn't it? >> mean, the legal >> yes. i mean, the legal challenges effective . vie challenges are effective. vie the supreme court, part two. it's based on the idea that this legislation is quite unique. it's legislation where parliament is making a factual determination about a third country on the ground. parliament is saying this country is safe. parliament is entitled to do that, but the idea is that parliament is making a factual determination and the legal challenge will be rooted in the point that any factual determination should be challenged the courts. and challenged in the courts. and i gave the example to jacob last time, which is if parliament tomorrow passes an act of parliament called the weather

act, and in it section one says every day is a sunny day , that's every day is a sunny day, that's fine, but whether factually, every day will be a sunny day is a different issue. and that's the point here, is that parliament is saying rwanda is a safe third country. it's entitled to do that. but should things change on the ground or should new evidence emerge ? the should new evidence emerge? the legal challenge is that that that should be determined by the courts. if there's a change on the ground, parliament says no. and this is where we're heading towards a collision course. and that's the key issues that are changed. >> i think we are heading towards a collision course. there's little doubt about that. >> and lord hoffman in in the, in house of lords last time in the house of lords last time said the last time something of this have to this sort happened, you have to go back to 1531 where parliament said we're putting forward said that we're putting forward a factual determination as to something . so we're saying we're something. so we're saying we're in unchartered territory, which is a is an understatement. >> what i think is going to come out of all of this is that the

echr will become a bigger and bigger political issue, a little bit like brexit. do we stay? do we leave? i think the judgement on issues awarded to those on green issues awarded to those swiss women, day ups swiss women, the other day ups the on this debate. see the ante on this debate. see inefficiently . do you think inefficiently. do you think leaving echr could become a serious political issue? >> it could. and you hear it more as i believe in it. >> you know, i believe in leaving. >> i don't personally, but all i would say is that even on the issue of leaving, there's a process for leaving. and in effect, there's a six month nofice effect, there's a six month notice period, something that's very rarely talked about. >> so sort of article 50 for the echr indeed . echr indeed. >> indeed that's enshrined in the convention itself. so there is a notice period, as it were. and from memory, i believe i'm fairly certain six months. fairly certain it's six months. so you were to activate so even if you were to activate that, how does this tie in with the general election and how this ties in with effectively time running out for this present government, as the polls suggest. so when do you activate the notice to leave the echr

then you kick start a six month nofice then you kick start a six month notice period. the longer you leave it, the more you're eating up into the election period. and so it looks like it will never happen. just on that sort of timing, it feels like it's going to be it feels to me right now this is going to be a general election issue. >> whichever way people vote, whether it actually happens or how long it takes to happen is another thing. but, i mean, it is doable , isn't it? if we chose is doable, isn't it? if we chose to leave it, we could leave it. as you say, it's all clearly. it's all clearly set out. we'd receive a whole load of abuse from european partners , from from our european partners, from those in this country that hated brexit in the first place. but it legally doable. it is legally doable. >> legally doable, in terms >> it's legally doable, in terms of the legal framework, yeah , of the legal framework, yeah, but as with everything, any legal pathways are dependent on political will. yeah >> and we've got the devolution agreements with it written into and we've got the brexit agreement. it would be one hell of a job, but it's coming . fardy

of a job, but it's coming. fardy thank you for joining of a job, but it's coming. fardy thank you forjoining me in a moment. we're going to get liz truss unfiltered of truss unfiltered on the bank of england, treasury and those england, the treasury and those that

down. well, she may only have been prime minister for 49 days, but goodness me, think of that first image. the 6th of september, 2022. she flies to balmoral. the picture of her shaking hands with the queen. that is the last photograph taken of her majesty the queen when she was still alive. two days later. there's truss, the new pm and the queen has died. we then, of course, had the budget not long after the big state funeral, a budget that was dramatic. the reaction to it from the bank of england, the international monetary fund, joe biden and many others led ultimately to her resignation after a run on the markets in

this next quarter of an hour, i talk to liz truss about all of those things, contest reasonably comfortably, quite a big margin over rishi sunak and then this completely astonishing and historic turn of events, which you document that the queen is up at balmoral and boris johnson goes to balmoral, say goodbye . goes to balmoral, say goodbye. you turn up at balmoral, you meet the queen and it is, i believe, the last ever photograph of the queen. and that was on the 6th of september. i rememberi remember september. i remember i remember seeing the photograph thinking that she did look very, very weak, very, very weak indeed. but i still , two days later, but i still, two days later, simply couldn't believe what we heard. the news that she'd gone. it seemed that she'd never, ever go.she it seemed that she'd never, ever go. she gave you some advice, didn't she? >> she did give me some advice. >> she did give me some advice. >> what did she say? >> what did she say? >> she told me to pace myself.

>> she told me to pace myself. >> sensible advice. you >> very sensible advice. did you listen to her, not enough . listen to her, maybe not enough. >> i think many would say she was very fair. maybe she said, because she was very, very knowledgeable politically . far knowledgeable politically. far more, i think, than most of the british public understood. perhaps she could see that you were a hurry. were in a hurry. >> perhaps she could. perhaps she she was very, i mean, she could. she was very, i mean, she could. she was very, i mean, she was incredibly lucid at that meeting. incredibly vie across what was happening in britain. she's a she was a great person. and, you know, it was a it was a very sad loss for the nation. but also, frankly, for me personally , and she finished our personally, and she finished our meeting by saying, i'll see you again next week. yeah. and i thought , you know, she would be thought, you know, she would be there. and she wasn't . there. and she wasn't. >> and there we are. two days later, it's the 8th of september, 2022, and the official announcement comes, yeah, late in the afternoon that the queen's gone , and you've got the queen's gone, and you've got this situation where charles,

you know, he's waited forever for this job, but his mother has just died. that can't be very easy at all. and you've literally been prime minister for a few hours. and the most famous person in the world, and the head of the commonwealth and the head of the commonwealth and the queen of our country has gone. you do sort of almost admit in the book that it was a bit overwhelming. >> yeah, it was, it was. and the i mean, by that stage, i was just in, you know, performance and survival mode. so i mean, the, the leadership election had kicked off while i was in indonesia for i watched boris resign from a hotel screen in bali, of all places, and i had to sort of rush back. and then from then on, you know, it was just, you know, it was building the car as we were driving along on the road on the leadership contest, you know, filming videos, doing events, doing announcements , you know, getting

announcements, you know, getting ready when it looked like i was going to win, getting ready for government, doing all that preparation and then straight in with all the things like appointing the cabinet, making the speeches. so in that circumstance , there was a there circumstance, there was a there was a moment which was a few days after the queen had died, and i was sitting on the save for my daughter. i just burst into tears because it was all so overwhelming. >> i'm sure it was. >> yes, you had all those things to do. and yet this, this story, the queen's death, the lying in state, the extraordinary funeral which was the most, i mean, unbelievable, the, the crowds that gathered in hyde park and at windsor. it was quite , quite at windsor. it was quite, quite astonishing. and that photograph astonishing. and that photograph as i say, of you with her, the last photograph ever recorded of the queen. things move incredibly quickly, liz, don't they? because i mean, you certainly do with 6th of september. we're 8th of september. >> i can't believe when i look back, i just can't believe it all happened so quickly so all happened so quickly and so much was fitted into what it did

every 24 hours, because suddenly it's budget and we're still we're still actually not out of the third week of september. >> it's the 23rd of september. it's the budget being delivered by kwasi kwarteng . and i've got by kwasi kwarteng. and i've got to tell you, you know, as somebody that believes in small state and free enterprise , as it state and free enterprise, as it was the first budget i'd listened to since, i think nigel lawson when i was in the city trading room. but i thought, wow, this really is going to, to, to, to, to sort of cause, a huge debate and some real change, i must admit, i had mild caution that maybe on the tax cuts it was too much too soon, but it seemed to me it seemed to me this was a genuine attempt to turn things around and stimulate growth . when you. it's growth. when you. it's difficult, obviously, given given where you went with it all. i guess the biggest failure of the lot, if i look at it and

get your point of view, but you were open to the charge of unfunded tax cuts without any corresponding cuts in government spending, are they fair criticisms? because that's what everybody thought and saw . everybody thought and saw. >> well, this this idea of an unfunded tax cut is a left wing idea. nobody ever talks about unfunded spending . you know, unfunded spending. you know, we'd had several furlough announcements, which were much bigger than what we announced in the mini—budget, which had gone on notice they'd gone on monitored by the office of budget responsibility. but and this is what i mean about the ideological bent of these institutions and organisations. but the problem was we had organisations including the treasury, including the abr, including the bank of england, that basically didn't support the policy. so of course they were briefing out stuff about what it wasn't just them. >> the international monetary fundin >> the international monetary fund in washington was very critical of the budget. i mean, there was this feeling you've

got to why what was the imf's criticism? >> the imf's criticism wasn't that it was economically bad. their criticism was it was unfair. yeah i'm sorry, what business is it of theirs whether or not. >> yeah. british tax. that's a domestic policy. i can't believe you're quoting them, to be honest. no, no, no, no, i'm not saying i agree with them, but it was as an observer i could see that the opposition there was a pile on was not just from. >> no, not just from the left in britain. and by the left, i include quite a lot of the financial media, but also from the us, from others, because they don't want their economic model to be challenged . yeah. model to be challenged. yeah. you know, and unfortunately, backbenchers , a lot of them were backbenchers, a lot of them were very wobbly . well that's true. very wobbly. well that's true. and some of them actively opposed the policies . and i kind opposed the policies. and i kind of thought about this when i ran for leadership, i thought, am i

going to actually be able to deliver these policies? you know, is there enough support for them? and thought we had for them? and i thought we had to. what was the alternative? the alternative was doing nothing and not getting the economic growth and the economic opportunities that were so important for putting the country on the right track. so i was i was conscious of that. i did hope that my colleagues would give me a chance and support me in the first instance. and frankly, there wasn't enough of that. >> no, but but that's politics. >> no, but but that's politics. >> but the part of this book that i think is the most interesting and you know, you're going to be called a conspiracy theorist and many other things, but it is the role of the bank of england, not just after the budget , but of england, not just after the budget, but before of england, not just after the budget , but before the of england, not just after the budget, but before the budget. did the bank know what was coming in the budget? >> yes they did. of course they did. yeah. >> well, first of all, i spent the whole summer in the leadership contest talking about

all the major measures and saying there would be an urgent, you know , an urgent fiscal event you know, an urgent fiscal event to announce these measures . so to announce these measures. so the corporation tax cut, which was or not not rising. that was the thing i talked about that was well, and that was the thing that i was forced to reverse . that i was forced to reverse. thatis that i was forced to reverse. that is the thing that i was forced to reverse. essentially by the economic establishment. and of course , they knew about and of course, they knew about it. and the bank of england, the bank of england had regular touch with treasury officials. we had worked up the entire mini—budget with treasury officials prior to me getting into number 10. so they all knew about it. the bank of england was sighted on it. >> and yet ahead of the budget , >> and yet ahead of the budget, interest rates need to rise to kerb inflation when they don't rise as much as everybody expects them to do that makes sterling a little bit, a little bit weaker on the exchanges . bit weaker on the exchanges. then this extraordinary measure where the bank of england sell

british government bonds, better known as gilts , did they try to known as gilts, did they try to do you believe in your own mind that the bank tried and helped to engineer a run on the markets? >> what i think and is for the bank of england to answer what happened over those days is they certainly didn't work to support the government's fiscal policy with their monetary policy and we know that that is the successful way to approach economic policy is that fiscal and monetary policy have to work together. and they certainly didn't work to support that. and nor did they alert it kwasi or |, nor did they alert it kwasi or i, to the real risks in the market of the ldi issue , as you market of the ldi issue, as you finish up very much on the back foot, embattled , you have to, foot, embattled, you have to, you know, u—turn on one of the key flagship policies. >> kwasi goes , those last few

>> kwasi goes, those last few days must have been very, very difficult indeed. >> i mean, so immediately after the whole ldi issue becomes apparent , this is when the apparent, this is when the governor of the bank of england intervenes. but he intervenes to create a only for a certain penod create a only for a certain period of time, 17 days. so what that effectively does is create a cliff edge, which means rather than sorting out the problem, it's creating speculation about what the government did. and at that time, there was also a lot of briefing coming out of the bank of england, essentially blaming mini—budget for what blaming the mini—budget for what was actually happening in the ldi and so not only had ldi market. and so not only had we not been alerted to this ldi issue, we were actually being blamed for the consequences. so there was blame shifting going on from the bank of england and the authorities onto the government over an issue we had no control over, no site over . no control over, no site over. and we were just we were not

prepared to respond to that. i mean, when i got into number 10, we'd had a fairly new team recruited. people weren't necessarily experienced in these issues. and what happened is the economic establishment did use that to be able to lay the blame at our door. >> well, they got their way . in >> well, they got their way. in the end, you had to resign and it must the whole thing must have been the whole thing on a personal level. it must have been horrific . been horrific. >> what was in those types of circumstances , you know, my circumstances, you know, my absolute focus was making sure that we didn't end up in some kind of gilt crisis. now, i, i, i didn't want to let the country down. so even though so i was very angry with the bank of england about what they'd done and the way that they were behaving, even though i was very angry with the office of budget responsibility, who had essentially leaked the fact that

there was a £70 billion hole in there was a £70 billion hole in the budget, that that leak turned out not to be true, but that spooked the markets as well. so i had active leaking and briefing going on. if i had responded and said that if i'd responded and said that if i'd responded and said that if i'd responded and criticised the governor of the bank of england or gone on the record and criticised the obr, i feared that would create more difficulties in the markets . and difficulties in the markets. and what i didn't want was to be in a situation where britain was not able to fund its debt. so i had to take it basically, and that was beyond frustrating because i, i still believe , and because i, i still believe, and many economists agree with me, from art laffer to patrick minford, that doug mcwilliams, you know, i still believe my plans were the right plans, but i just faced a huge, huge hostility vie in seeking to implement them . implement them. >> well, it's all very powerful stuff. i have to say. i do

believe that what she was trying to do with kwasi kwarteng in that budget was correct. they were the right things, many of them common sense, sensible things to do. i was particularly pleased to hear, you know, i are 35 rules which are making life so difficult for the self—employed would be reviewed. but she was fighting treasury orthodoxy. she was fighting this office of budget responsibility and clearly the biggest fight of all was with the bank of england. and when you think you add to that the international monetary fund were weighing in, saying it was wrong to cut taxes for high earners. joe biden piled in before she resigned. i have some sympathy for her. i feel, had they actually cut spending in that budget, they might have got away with it. but probably the conclusion is they tried to do too much too soon. either way, we're now back to jeremy hunt and it almost makes

no difference now economically , no difference now economically, i think, whether labour or the conservatives win the next election. i have some sympathy with truss. i believe the bank of england behaved appallingly. in a moment i'll discuss that with city grandee daniel hodson and see whether he agrees with my analysis

i asked you earlier. how did the west get it so wrong over iran? what are your reactions coming in that are interesting ? alan in that are interesting? alan says we must decide whether or not it's in our interest to get rid of the iranian regime. if it is, and i think it is in our interest to get rid of it, then we should. no messing around, steve makes a very, very powerful point indeed . he says, powerful point indeed. he says, i believe israel and the west should deal with iran immediately, swiftly and forcefully before they become a

nuclear power. forget russia or china. it's iran that will start world war three. and steve, i have to say, i do have some sympathy with that view. and matt says, isn't it ironic that cameron, one of the key idiots in the destruction of libya, is now preaching to israel as to whether it has a legitimate reason to carry out military operations? matt cameron was wrong about iran , wrong about wrong about iran, wrong about libya, wrong about the european union , wrong about china. and union, wrong about china. and for sunak to have brought him back as foreign secretary is a disaster . back as foreign secretary is a disaster. now joining me down the line is city grandee daniel hodson to help me respond to what liz truss had to say. dan, welcome to the program. i can't help thinking that from the imf to the obr, the treasury to everybody, bank of england is almost as if there was a globalist agenda that said do not cut the size of government and do not cut taxes .

and do not cut taxes. >> well, i think that you have to look at some of the things liz said. it was very clear that she had obviously had some conversations before she came, became pm. but i think it's all about markets here. it's all about markets here. it's all about understanding markets and what actually fundamentally went wrong at the time of execution was, i believe the bank of england didn't actually understand the market to the extent it should . our markets extent it should. our markets are hugely powerful and the whole events surrounding that. the debacle following the budget prove that she referred to these liability driven investments very complicated instruments. i wonder whether the bank properly understood what the impact would be if she did the sort of thing she proposed to do in the budget. but i also think that the words that she repeated at the words that she repeated at the queen's, which i think you yourself would agree with, nigel, i think you did nigel, i think i think you did pace yourself . probably would pace yourself. probably would have applied. and yes, the economic background was

extremely poor. i mean, inflation was 9% and rising interest rates were very low. it was clear they were going to have to go up. so i mean, the whole circumstance was there, but i go back to my original point. i actually believe in the independence the bank independence of the bank of england, i the bank of england, but i think the bank of england, but i think the bank of england needs to be, in a way, far more market oriented. it should be. it always was. when i ran a city market, i used to spend a lot of time in the bank of england talking about what the markets doing. they the markets were doing. they should known that these should have known that these ladies going what ladies were going to do what they did, they clearly did not. >> you see, my point is, when i worked in a city different institution to you, we used to go and play golf for the bank of england. they have social connections through the connections through all the markets. charge of markets. they were in charge of regulating banks. they've regulating the banks. they've been the banks the been running the banks and the banking industry since 1694. and gordon brown took all of that away, put regulation of a city to a bunch of tick box bureaucrats down in canary

wharf, and actually far from being independent, i think what liz truss is saying is that by selling government bonds on the eve of the budget, that the bank of england acted politically, she i'm not sure that's true, actually. >> i mean, i do believe in a complementarity between the management, the fiscal side of, of policy and the monetary side. and i believe in the bank of england's independence, but i think that it could be better structured, better manage. it did get some of the regulation back again, of course. and the whole problem is one which actually is one with which you can identify the whole of regulation. these days, which is that it isn't market sensitive enough. that it isn't market sensitive enough . and markets are very enough. and markets are very powerful. and what happened and global global markets are very powerful. i would ignore the with the exception of probably the office of budget responsibility, the external comments on it, because i think we have every right to go ahead

and our own as we and plan our own economy as we want. so many times those want. and so many times those external have been external experts have been proved indeed the proved wrong, as indeed the office budget responsibility proved wrong, as indeed the offiybeen budget responsibility proved wrong, as indeed the offiybeen proved responsibility proved wrong, as indeed the offiybeen proved wrong. sibility proved wrong, as indeed the offiybeen proved wrong. soility proved wrong, as indeed the offiybeen proved wrong. so that has been proved wrong. so that is itself one of the problems here. i think it's a problem not with the structure or the basis of the institution, but the way it's actually run. >> now. pace yourself. as you say, the queen's advice was very, very good advice. she was incredibly wise right up to her last couple of days . and last couple of days. and clearly, you know, truss did not pace herself. she went sort of going for gold with that budget too much too soon. and i would agree with you on that analysis. but here's the point. she was trying to argue for free markets. she was trying to argue for entrepreneurship and the encouragement of people who were self—employed running small businesses. she was arguing that the tax burden has become too high and people have started leaving the country, whereas we'd rather have them here

paying we'd rather have them here paying their taxes with us. those arguments about lower taxes, about a smaller state, about entrepreneurship , i about entrepreneurship, i wonder, as a result of what happened during that 49 days, whether that debate has possibly been put back from the national stage for several years ? stage for several years? >> well, of course, it depends entirely on what you think is gonna happen towards the end of this year with with the change of government, sort of doubt of government, i sort of doubt based on what shadow based based on what the shadow chancellor saying that they're going to much from the going to change much from the hunt , going to change much from the hunt, program , it reminds me of hunt, program, it reminds me of what used to be called butskellism in the old days that that was the butler. and gaitskell, the two chancellors and shadow chancellor. and i'm afraid that's right . and shadow chancellor. and i'm afraid that's right. but i do think one thing which which i'm sure you would agree with nigel, is that the most important things that she was doing in the budget, leaving your point budget, leaving aside your point about and about about spending, and i think you could say that maybe

it was bit excessive on that, it was a bit excessive on that, on that, on that side. but the laffer curve , to which she laffer curve, to which she referred in her interview, which shows and has been proven again and again and again, shows that if you raise the marginal tax, higher taxes, you get more tax income. if you, if you, if you, if you sorry, if you lower the tax rate at the higher end, then you get you get, get more income. and i think she was absolutely right about that as she was indeed about corporate taxes too. but, you know, unfortunately, as you rightly say, it won't be it won't be tried out. now, i think that, the difficulty was that daniel, i think is that daniel, i think is the tragedy. >> i'm going to have to leave it there. thank you, as ever, for coming on in this case, on jacob's show. really not mine. now, patrick christys is coming up. is the menu up. patrick, what is on the menu for evening? please for this evening? please >> well, i have got the worst ever example of an asylum detention centre popping up. it's got everything wrong with it. it's a big exclusive. i went

to visit it on saturday, so we'll be dealing with that. former armed forces minister james is on this james heappey is live on this show as well. are we ready for war? how should when war? how far should we go when it israel it comes to supporting israel and terror? sleeper and iranian terror? sleeper cells operating in britain? nigel, with funded by the nigel, with visas funded by the taxpayer, it's all going to be very powerful stuff . very powerful stuff. >> i'll join you live from brussels. return to brussels tomorrow night at seven. first, let's have a look at the all important weather. >> a brighter outlook with boxt solar sponsors of weather on . gb news. >> hello again. welcome to the latest weather forecast from the met office. it's going to stay blustery over the next 24 hours, but less windy than it has been. and the showers will slowly ease as well. low pressure is pulling away . it's moving as well. low pressure is pulling away. it's moving east. as well. low pressure is pulling away . it's moving east. we've away. it's moving east. we've got high pressure arriving later in the week, but for the time being the weather stays very changeable with showers or longer spells of rain moving

through during the evening. many of these showers will actually fade away after midnight, although some will continue down the north sea coast there 1 or 2 for northern ireland, parts of wales and central england, but otherwise drier and otherwise plenty of drier and clearer weather emerging later in the night. a chill in the air first thing tuesday, but too breezy for most for a frost, and there'll be plenty of bright weather. first thing, especially for scotland, northern england, parts of western uk. but further cloud and showers will affect the north sea coast and showers will tend to bubble up elsewhere , particularly for northern ireland. parts of central and southern england, wales and northwest scotland. it's going to the cold side, but to stay on the cold side, but temperatures a degree or so higher compared with monday's and less windy, so a bit more pleasant out there. another chilly start on wednesday, but again, sunshine first again, plenty of sunshine first thing turning cloudy and damp for northern ireland. showers emerging elsewhere but plenty of bright or at least drier weather in between the showers. and then

as we go through the latter half of the week, things do slowly turn drier, more settled and warmer . warmer. >> looks like things are heating up boxt boilers sponsors of weather on

gb news. >> in a moment. headliners but first, mps have tonight voted to

reject multiple house of lords amendments to the government's flagship rwanda bill. >> eyes to the right. >> eyes to the right. >> 315. >> 315. >> the noes to the left, 250. >> the noes to the left, 250. >> so the ayes have it. the ayes have it. unlock >> that followed a debate in the house of commons tonight. mps dismissing all the changes the lords had raised a number of concerns, including age assessments, uk court jurisdiction and modern slavery concerns . but conservative mp concerns. but conservative mp sir william cash dubbed the proposed changes ridiculous. labour said the scheme was doomed to fail anyway. the bill will return to the lords tomorrow for further scrutiny . tomorrow for further scrutiny. now the prime minister is appealing to israel's leader to show restraint following iran's drone and missile attack . drone and missile attack. earlier, rishi sunak repeated the uk's support for israel but said he wanted to caution benjamin netanyahu about a further escalation of violence in the middle east. there was condemnation of iran's military

offensive against israel from both sir keir starmer and rishi sunakin both sir keir starmer and rishi sunak in the commons today. >> our aim is to support stability and security because it is right for the region and because